Can you share some sources on these claims?
389 karma · joined August 22, 2011
And even if you had gotten into Stanford, I wonder if you would feel insecure around the Stanford whizzes who seemed like geniuses.
And even if you were one of those top academically performing students, I wonder if you would still continue to compare yourself to the most elite in that circle (i.e., "Joe got a research internship at Google Brain as a Sophomore! I just have this lousy Facebook internship that it seems like half my peer group got.")[1]
My point is this: if you choose to, you will almost always find a way to be miserable. This isn't a personal attack on _you_ specifically. I think all humans engage in this sort of constant comparisons, at least to some degree. I do this too.
But I'm pointing this out because there's also a component to this that is our _choice_. We choose who we compare ourselves against, and we choose how that comparison affects us (e.g., as a source of inspiration, as a source of excitement, as a source of self-deprecation).
I notice that in your comments, it seems like you have willing given up your choice and agency over to some set of other immutable forces, like your genes, your school's ranking or some other force.
I hope you reclaim your agency and power. It just seems a shame to a whole life in which you willingly give away your agency to be happy.
Finally, as for "fixing yourself", I would just observe that a useful framework for mental wellness to use is that of physical health: being healthy is a choice we can make, and we need to keep on making on a daily basis. At no point can you say, "Well, I'm fit and healthy now so I guess I can go back to eating chips and chugging beer." Fitness isn't a state that is obtained and can never be lost. It's a process of constant daily choices to improve and maintain. It's also affected by genetic and external factors we have little control over.
In that way, I think it's similar to mental health. You may not be able to "fix" yourself by seeing a therapist a few times. But you can continuously improve your mental health by noticing each time you compare yourself with a stranger online, engage in self-shaming, talk "down" to yourself, or blame your genes. Those choices can compound over time, and given a long enough time period, will start to show marked improvements in the same way that doing some pushups, pullups, squats etc. consistently every day for months or years will improve your physical health.
I wish you the best of luck.
--------
[1] That example is something I have actually seen in peers/friends who, by external accounts, seem very successful. But they themselves are miserable because they're always comparing themselves with someone else who seems even more successful. "Comparison is the thief of joy." - Teddy Roosevelt.
Then, this comment that I'm currently replying to, pins most of the responsibility on not "having the genes for it."
Your HN username also leads me to think you have a "fixed mindset" around your capabilities.
Regardless of to what extent (1) and (2) impact general career success, I suspect your mindset is a self-limiting one. For example, even if 80% of a person's success was determined by their genes and pedigree, and only 20% by their personal effort or resourcefulness, I suspect the mindset you have is to focus on lamenting the fact that you don't have the 80% and neglect the 20% you do have control over, leaving it on the ground and thereby reducing your own chances of success. It'd be a little bit like someone who wasn't born particularly tall, saying "Well, what's the point of drilling dribbling, passing, defending or shooting? There's no way I'll ever be the world's best player with genes like mine?" resulting in a self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.[1]
I don't want to come off as a preachy person on the internet to someone who I don't know, but if I could make a suggestion I would be curious for you to introspect as to why you may have this worldview. Folks I know in real life who have a mindset similar to those expressed in your comments often seem to feel insecure, unconfident or otherwise engage in self-shaming and constant comparisons with others.
[Edit] In the spirit of sharing, I will confess that that your mindset also reminded me of mine when I was in college. I had gotten rejected from a large number of universities I wanted to attend, and had only gotten into my state university. My peers and friends from high school largely went to prestigious brand-names.
The insecurity gnawed at me and made me engage in many foolish behaviors during college, and also caused me to constantly compare myself with others. I was ultimately very unhappy.
Through a series of experiences (i.e. therapy, honest introspection and self-reflection, conversations with trusted friends, being challenged on my mindset by others), I slowly came to understand how my mindset contributed to the same failures I was complaining about.
It's been over a decade since then and I have long since shed the mindset that held me back then, and am much happier for it.
-----
[1] Even this example is probably inaccurate because it draws from a domain where genetics play a larger role than I think they do in professional success. I suspect many attributes of a successful professional come from behaviors and tactics that are learned through social mimicry and learning from others rather than some genetic predisposition towards e.g., being thoughtful, being articulate and concise, running effective meetings etc.
And are there any HNers who work at Zoom, or know someone who works at Zoom, who can speak to how this situation is perceived internally?
The at home resources are here: https://csunplugged.org/en/at-home/
I also found the following section from the article especially thought-provoking:
> He second-guessed the wording of the label, but never the theory. Even after he changed his terminology to disruptive innovation, he saw flaws.
> “What we didn’t anticipate, and what in many ways was a fault of mine,” he told Quartz.com in 2016, “was that the term disruption has so many different connotations in the English language, that it allows people to justify whatever they want to do as, ‘Oh, this is disruptive,’ and they don’t ever read the book. The population of people where the fewest have read the book are venture capitalists. They are arrogant and smart and why do they need to read something?”
> He wished he’d created something less expressive. He began to discuss type 1 innovations and type 2 innovations, with a nod to Daniel Kahneman, because he believed those terms were vague enough to force people to read and understand his work more closely.
It makes me think about the way complex ideas get distorted and re-interpreted as they get repeated, like in a game of Telephone.
"… as expected, average effects were small because many students are already doing well, do not have motivational issues, or are not in environments that encourage or support growth-mindset behaviors. When we take account of such factors, more noteworthy effects emerge. The improvements in the gateway outcome of 9th grade GPA were concentrated among adolescents who are at significant risk for compromised well-being and economic welfare: those with lower levels of prior achievement attending relatively lower achieving schools. The finding that an intervention can redirect this adolescent outcome in this sub-group, in under an hour, without training of teachers, and at scale (i.e. in a random sample of nation’s schools), represents a significant advance."
Personal experience lines up with the result that lower-achieving students may benefit more from the "growth mindset" idea than others. For instance, I did notice that messaging I gave to students with a "fixed mindset" towards studying CS/math seemed to improve motivation, work ethic and interest over the course of a semester.
* Summary of a some criticism by researchers trying to replicate the original studies: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset?utm....
However, this BuzzFeed article has itself been critiqued for strawmanning "mindset theory" and not highlighting some of the meta-analyses that have given evidence to the theory of "growth mindset". Source: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/mindset-theory-a-popular-idea...
* It's worth noting that Carol Dweck herself has commented on how she believes her research is being inaccurately applied in schools: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-re...
* Here are two (pay-walled) meta-analyses done on "growth mindset" research: (1) https://www.scribd.com/document/326191990/InPress-BurnetteOB... (2) https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/diss201019/17/
-----
As a footnote, I will say two quick things: first, I've found the theory of "growth vs. fixed mindset" in helping me challenge myself in areas I may otherwise not have. Second, on the other hand I have worked full-time in a high school as a CS teacher and we discussed growth mindset quite often in this school. Many students became "immune" to the idea and rolled their eyes at it to the point of making it a meme around the school.
I think from an employee perspective, seeing leaders talk about squishy things like "company values" can feel hokey and gimmicky. After all, even Enron had plaques hanging in their headquarters about their values. So are values just the sort of snake-oil marketing buzzwords you use to sell how great and "innovative" your organization to investors and prospective employees (e.g. WeWork)?
I certainly think that this is true to some extent for most companies.
At the same time I also think they're really important for founders/leaders to articulate and stick with. It explicitly formalizes a set of moral norms, behavioral patterns and ideologies you want those who are part of your company to abide by. They're pithy shorthands for verbally and explicitly describing your company's aspirational culture to others who are not part of it.
I think a lot of us feel disgruntled and frustrated when leaders profess one set of values, and seem to live by another. I think many of us would prefer to work for a company where the values aren't explicitly stated, but they're followed than for a company where the reverse is true (e.g. Enron).
At it's core, I think having a set of company values is basically having a list of aspirational behavioral norms that you have agreed to collectively prioritize. It allows people to check people's decisions against these norms (e.g. "Hey, I think you're doing something sneaky that makes our company look good to prospective clients, but I think it's important we respect our value of 'No Shenanigans.'"), and also make decisions (e.g. "One thing we value is to 'Not Settle'. Are we settling in this product decision?").
Done well, it can be really motivating and purposeful.
Done hypocritically or inconsistently, it just feels like another marketing gimmick that big companies do.
As folks who are fairly proficient in programming, our scales for what constitutes as a "difficult task" can be wildly different from beginners to the field. They haven't built the knowledge, experience and mental representations to accurately determine whether something is hard or easy (case in point: my 9th graders will often propose final projects that would take a group of seasoned engineers months to complete).
After CS classes in college and working in the field, I kinda forgot about the initial setup barriers that I first encountered (and was much more patient to battle through); but after just teaching a single class of middle school students (a) not knowing how to properly install software and (b) as a result, getting into the state of "This is boring ... so I'm going to entertain myself by socializing, distracting my friends, or goofing around" I quickly realized how important it was for these kids' first experience with programming to be painless ... otherwise they would also make my life as a teacher a difficult one.
Congrats on the launch of the new program! Really excited to see the growth and spread of the Insight program.
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
(a) Bret Victor claiming that code.org is implicitly, via quotes from high-profile figures, supporting a misguided view of computer science education that is overly simplistic and suboptimal towards providing the deeper, more nuanced value that programming can teach.
(b) Bret Victor himself being simplistic and uncharitable in mocking the quotes by these high-profile figures.
I think Bret is correct to point out (a), but the method that he chose to do so lended itself to an acrimonious response by many people who have good intentions, leading to responses towards (b). I myself was initially annoyed by the tone of his post. But after some thought and reflection, I found myself agreeing with the sentiment expressed by this post.
I do think that there is a lot more nuance that could have been communicated when it comes to the value of learning programming. The real debate here, I think, is whether it's reasonable to expect a high-profile figure to comment with such sophistication and nuance, especially within the constraints of a short blurb (which is what I would presume is what their PR person and code.org agreed upon).
Is it justified to expect such a degree of nuance from high-status figures and organizations, given the context that computer science education is currently in?
Karen Croft, a writer who worked for Nader in the late 1970s at the Center for Study of Responsive Law, once asked him if he had ever considered getting married. She reports: "He said that at a certain point he had to decide whether to have a family or to have a career, that he couldn't have both. That's the kind of person he is. He couldn't have a wife—he's up all night reading the Congressional Record." [1]
There's a part of me that admires the sense of devotion to a personal vision or mission. I believe it's this unrelenting, screw-the-consequences, type of drive that create greatness.
At the same time, as a young single man in his 20s, I am still wrestling with my own personal choices and opinions on this matter.